Reuters isn’t entirely accurate here. I posted the photo to my account twice Friday; Facebook censored it once and gave me a slap on the wrist. In my case, Facebook still has not reversed itself.
I actually posted it twice, in connection with two separate articles. The first article is still up, and it’s also here on the public web.
However, Facebook deleted a second instance, which is here on the public web.
Facebook also issued me a warning. I think it suspended my account briefly — not sure; the notices went by quickly.
And Facebook required me to go through my photo album to be sure I don’t have any more nude photos in there. I did not look at each one, just thought for a second about whether I remembered posting any nude photos, decided I hadn’t, and clicked OK.
This is a big reason why I consider mitchwagner.com… my home on the web even though far more people interact with me on social media. Social media is fickle.
Facebook is partly right: That is a disturbing photo.
But what’s disturbing about it isn’t the nudity.
What’s disturbing is that it’s a photo of a child who’s been severely burned in a napalm attack. A napalm attack by an American ally in an American war.
And it’s disturbing that Facebook thinks it’s the nudity that’s the problem.
Facebook Censors Iconic Vietnam War Photo Over Nudity – Mark Scott, The New York Times